Change self-defense so it is no longer an affirmative defense and place the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim of self-defense is not valid. As I understand it, Ohio is the only remaining state in the US that has not done this.

Liberty wrote:

2. Propose shifting the burden in self-defense to the state, via reasonable doubt.

This one is so important. It may not raise Ohio's rank on G&A's annual "Best States for Gun Owners" but it will save good people from spending years in jail because they failed to be able to offer sufficient proof on every single element of their self defense claim. That's a standard that doesn't exist in NY, CA, MD, TX, FL or any other state and it's a tremendous burden when facing the almost unlimited resources of state prosecution.

Take for example the recent not guilty verdict for Weldon Teasley (NC). The police had been called to his home twice that night and were on their way out on a third call when he shot Judarius Quick in what he claimed was self defense. Here's an important quote from the trial:

Quote:

[The prosecutor] said that doesn’t prove reasonable doubt, but it should bring up concern, and jurors should weigh the credibility and believability of Teasley’s testimony.

In Ohio, whether the issue the prosecutor was referring to proves reasonable doubt is immaterial. All it needs to do is be slightly more convincing than not (preponderance of the evidence).

It took the North Carolina jurors only 1 hr & 5 mins to find Teasley not guilty. Since Ohio is the only state in the nation requiring the defendant to prove the elements of their self-defense claim, that verdict would probably have been very different for an Ohioan.

HB 231 was a good start, too bad it didn't get anywhere this session. In addition to that, the presumption of innocence in self-defense, and change a CHL to a concealed weapon license. Those who can't or don't want to use a firearm for whatever reason should not be denied other means of defending themselves. Better yet, allow edged and impact weapon carry without a license, the same as OC spray and stun guns.

... any person who is carrying a weapon and unknowingly walks down a street that is considered part of a college campus will have committed a felony and will loose their right to own a firearm.

Although I agree with the ideal you are espousing, I disagree with the scenario you have offered.

A public street is a public thoroughfare, as is the adjacent sidewalk. The fact that it traverses a college/university campus is irrelevant. The same is true regardless of whether it is a public or private college/university. If the college/university wants to exercise total dominion over the public thoroughfare, the can petition to vacate it pursuant to R.C. Chapter 723, and I have seen that done. However, until such time as they follow the prescribed legal process, it remains a public thoroughfare.

And yes, I have carried a handgun, both concealed and openly, in reliance on that interpretation on many occasions. Just don't venture off the sidewalk.

I beat a speeding ticket because the officer could not state where the incident occurred. She said between mile markers such and such. On cross I asked her where she was located. She did not understand the question. I asked her if there were any corporation signs and she said one and no others. She then stated that she did not know where she was located. And then admitted she did not know where I committed the alleged crime.

I moved for acquittal and the prosecution objected saying it didn't matter where she was sitting. I said under Chapter 711 corporation lines had to be marked. She signed the ticket under penalty of perjury stating it happened in Cincinnati and she testified she did not know where either one of us was located at the time of the alleged violation.

My priorities would be the following, not necessarily in this order:End LEO notificationStand Your GroundEliminate statutory CPZs, primarily schools, churches, and unsecured government buildingsChange self-defense so it is no longer an affirmative defense and place the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim of self-defense is not valid. As I understand it, Ohio is the only remaining state in the US that has not done this.

I would just add to these:

Put teeth in ORC 9.68 as contained in HB203.

If schools can't be eliminated as CPZs, at least allow us to lock our guns in our cars on school property.

Either remove force of law from voluntarily posted CPZ signs, or regularize them and require them to be posted at each customer entrance to a business. The signs could be the same as the ones many businesses already have posted -- just so they are large enough to be easily observed (none of these two-inch-square transparent stickers, for example).

I realize that some of us don't look very hard for these signs, but I do -- I don't like giving my business to places that post them.

Zeko

Very good lists. To these, I would only add 2 things. Secured govt buildings should be required to provide lockers for storage, and private parking lot protection.

To America's Citizen Soldier; Who answered the call; Climbed the hill; Paid the price; And never let us down.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Last edited by Liberty on Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

We can buy and give Lott's book to legislators, but we can't make them read it or learn the lessons within. Those that care, already know. Those we need to educate are not going to learn from the book. They need contact from constituents to make it personal for them.

Generalization of course, but in general this is where we are at. It's not about educating on issues, it's about developing trusted personal relationships. That is why campaign season is so important - it's when we can do for them and develop those relationships that they consider important.

You are in the best position to make this determination. I will take your word on this.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Only reason I ask about notifying cops is that most of them will give a CHL a break (professional courtesy) on minor violations.

I would disagree with that statement to an extent. Yes, most give professional courtesy, but I will also say that this is the highest violation of CHL holders. I have seen more CHL holders arrested for this over any other CHL type violation. And it's not really minor. It's an M1 with a mandatory license suspension. I don't really count the MM section with the officer having prior knowledge as something one can easily prove in court. How can you prove he ran the license plate or your driver's license BEFORE the stop. We are talking minor minutes between times and everything being on different computer systems times do not always match up.

Both Cleveland and Akron have license plate scanners that can run all the time, and the CHL comes up on LEEDS. They usually use the plate scanners to find people with outstanding warrants, but it certainly could be used to find CHL holders. Also, most cities have artificially low speed limits and don't systematically enforce them so that they can pull over anyone they want because everyone is speeding.

I asked a few people about this issue yesterday and today and was told that it is pretty well know that if you get pulled over in Cleveland you will lose your gun--they all carry hipoints so they are only out a couple hundred bucks.

Maybe this issue is a little more important than I initially thought.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Both Cleveland and Akron have license plate scanners that can run all the time, and the CHL comes up on LEEDS. They usually use the plate scanners to find people with outstanding warrants, but it certainly could be used to find CHL holders. Also, most cities have artificially low speed limits and don't systematically enforce them so that they can pull over anyone they want because everyone is speeding.

I asked a few people about this issue yesterday and today and was told that it is pretty well know that if you get pulled over in Cleveland you will lose your gun--they all carry hipoints so they are only out a couple hundred bucks.

Maybe this issue is a little more important than I initially thought.

Keep in mind those systems don't actually run through LEADS. They download certain databases from LEADS and store on the individual computers. The systems then crosscheck against those databases to see if there are any matches. They only download exactly what they need and only show info on positive hits.

Could it be programmed to download the CHL database? Sure. What's the benefit?

There is no legitimate benefit just like there is no legitimate benefit of duty to report when stopped, but both can be abused especially in a city like Cleveland that is so hostile toward armed citizens. I have had the pleasure of being acquainted with Cleveland police officers as students in my criminal justice classes, and all of them are very fine people, but they follow orders and accomplish things that please their superiors. And there are those few in every department with power issues like Harless in Canton. That gets magnified when the political establishment is as hostile toward armed citizens as Cleveland is. Coincidentally, those are also the officers that usually don't take college classes; so I and other faculty cannot explain to them that an armed citizenry makes them safer and the duty to report CHL's just gives them a false sense of security.

This is the same as corrections officials using universal protection when coming in contact with body fluids and the bodies of inmates. They are not told who has AIDS or Hepatitis because there may be those who are infected but not diagnosed. So in their training, they are taught to treat everyone as if they have a deadly communicable disease. If there were no duty to report, LE would have to assume everyone has a gun. How it is, they are immediately notified of the presence of a firearm by people who are the least likely to harm them. Duty to report just plays into the fallacy that CHL holders are dangerous because they have guns. That is dangerous for everyone. And therein lies the solution. We need to convince the law enforcement community that they are safer without the duty to report.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

A. Parking lot storage - secured in the vehicle; employers are prohibited from asking employees about weapons in vehicles.B. Personal Vehicles - prohibit employers (PRIVATE) from abusing "At-Will" doctrine by prohibiting these employers from restricting employees from having weapons in their personal vehicles...(copy Ky law).C. Give employees legal right to defend themselves & others in a crisis situation and prohibit employers from disciplining/terminating employees for those actions.

2. Stand Your Ground

3. CPZs - schools - can have weapons locked in vehicle on parking lot; colleges - right to carry on campus; churches/Govt - right to carry (except secured areas of LE & Courts).

This CHL holder's Christmas wish list looks familiar. It looks a lot like last year's list and the one before that. It's kind of like the boy that asks Santa for a Red Rider carbine, a 1:24 scale train set, a radio flyer sled and a space heater for his cold attic bedroom, but instead gets a pair of socks, work gloves, a blanket and a snow shovel. So he puts the same thing on his list for next year.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.